I'm sorry for not replying here as much as I should. Thank you for standing up for your views theunchosen, I agree exactly with what you have been getting at.
Even so, I feel compelled to bring up the whole "Why" deal again.
There just simply are too many people here satisfied with their
half empty glass not to.
I have had, and am currently, an owner of cars from both worlds of fuel economy--The NOW: a 2001 Toyota Prius--and the WAS: a 1992 Geo Metro XFi.
In short, the XFi is funner to drive, more fuel efficient, and is immensely easier and cheaper to repair (even if it's a total rust bucket).
The only practical benefits I can readily see for the extra $13k and 9 years of technological advancements is a marginal amount of additional performance--which I can't say I use too often--increased sound deadening, and colorful, informative displays.
I'm sure safety is a plus on the Prius, but like many, many other drivers I don't fear for my life on a day to day basis and thus never wear my seat belt.
Is it too much to ask for a logical renewal of the Geo Metro? --So we don't have to drive either our 18 year old **** heap Metro's or settle for double priced, less fuel efficient new vehicles offering less fuel economy than that of autos from 80's and 90's? The answer is NO. All regulations can be meet under a sub 10k price tag, with a sub 2k pound car, and 50 + mpg ratings. There is obviously a strong demand for such a car, they obviously serve a good, practical purpose, and they obviously could make stand alone profits, all while reinvigorating the lackluster youth auto market. If they were available perhaps the median car buyer this year wouldn't have been 49 years old.
And that, in a very rough summarized way, is why I want to turn this ex-hybrid into a more fuel efficient, but vastly more simple and affordable version of it's prior self.
Spending $10 grand extra on a car is okay if it gives you what you want, but being forced to spend an extra $10 grand to get nothing more than early 80's fuel economy is not what anybody should want and thus it is
not okay.
Now regarding all the hybrid discussion on this topic. I welcome it, but it's not the point of this project. This Insight will be powered by a super fuel efficient, yet marginally affordible <5k new, ICE.
I do have a bunch of wrecked hybrids laying around and I intend on getting many, many more, so yes I'm going to eventually look for some way to beat the efficiency of the Insight that I am working on now.
If however, after starting another project like I just mentioned, I end up spending 10k extra just in the drivetrain, and I still end up with a car that can only obtain 50 mpg, then that project would be deemed a failure. In fact if it is any less efficient than my current Insight project will be upon completion, then it will also be a failure.
Likewise, the Prius is a failure.
It was sold at a cost premium of 10 grand over comparative vehicles with the one useful promise being that it would deliver exceptional fuel economy with low emissions.
It delivered sub 50 mpg figures.
It has failed to give the consumer what they deserved--instead it gave them the economic performance of a 1992 Geo Metro with an added paranoia that every little problem will cost thousands to repair.
If that's not fulfilling a goal--in fact a need--then I have no idea what is. How 3/4 of a million Prius' alone were sold is just a statement to how cornered the market has become--and to how brain washed we've come to the meaning of fuel efficiency. This is not fuel efficiency, even with my Prius I have to pay over $100 to transport my ass from Chicago to LA, and that's the cheapest, most practical way I can think to do it. I want to do it for $20, but that means is not offered to me, despite the fact it is available, and that pisses me off.
This is energy we're talking about here. From a political, economic, and humanitarian aspect, it is difficult to imagine a more important issue. The fact that we've been toyed around with so much from a fuel economy standpoint that most of us can't even remember the fuel economy of cars sold new on the lot 15 years ago is absolutely terrifying. If this is how easy it is to twist the wants and needs of consumers then I don't see any reason why an automotive company would feel compelled to ever give us what we want--they're just decide what we want for us.
Likewise they are going to decide how much it costs for us to fly in a plane, the cost to heat our homes and feed our families, how many people die due to global warming next year in costal Nigeria, and ultimately that heating our butts as we drive our AC chilled car at 120 mph is a ****ing key necessity.
This is not a new idea, nor is it one that's hard to grasp, it's simply an everyday occurrence--and the current fuel economy standards in the US are a blatant example--and thus one that's easy to stand up to.
Fuel economy is just the tip of iceberg in regards to overall energy corruption. It just happens to be relevant in a fuel economy forum, where, if anywhere else, there should be people willing to step up and demand what's right, what's wanted, and what's needed.